Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 05:59 pm
LOL Ok then.

So if a doctor of the medical sciences determines the time of death by when the heart stops beating how can he turn around and say that an embryo with a heartbeat is not alive?

And if it's a human embryo then obviously it's not an egg or a zygote. Neither of those have a heartbeat. However an embryo develops one some time between 5-8 weeks. By 10 weeks the embryo has detached from the wall of the uterus and is now swimming in the womb separate from it's mother except for the umbilical cord. Which serves the purpose of providing the necessary nutrients and oxygen the it needs for normal growth and development as well as removing waste products.

Oh, by the way... do things that are not alive produce waste? Do they need oxygen or nutrients?

And if this human embryo is in fact alive at the time it's heart starts beating according to medical science's definition of when death occures, how is that considered any less murder than if I were to drown my own child in the bathtub because he was being bad?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:24 pm
hephzibah wrote:
LOL Ok then.

So if a doctor of the medical sciences determines the time of death by when the heart stops beating how can he turn around and say that an embryo with a heartbeat is not alive?

And if it's a human embryo then obviously it's not an egg or a zygote. Neither of those have a heartbeat. However an embryo develops one some time between 5-8 weeks. By 10 weeks the embryo has detached from the wall of the uterus and is now swimming in the womb separate from it's mother except for the umbilical cord. Which serves the purpose of providing the necessary nutrients and oxygen the it needs for normal growth and development as well as removing waste products.

Oh, by the way... do things that are not alive produce waste? Do they need oxygen or nutrients?

And if this human embryo is in fact alive at the time it's heart starts beating according to medical science's definition of when death occures, how is that considered any less murder than if I were to drown my own child in the bathtub because he was being bad?


I think the usual response is....because the momma says so and the law protects here right to say so in regards to the unborn. The law protects her right to decide either way until the child is born....?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:28 pm
Well, as uninteresting as that response would be... I must say that's a bunch of poppycock. Facts are facts right? So if the law disregards some known scientific facts why shouldn't we? It seems to me that for the law to do so only weakens science's argument about certain things.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:29 pm
Bartikus wrote:
If that is how a doctor of the medical sciences determines a death then....the heart first beating logically would be the beginning of a person's life.


I'm not so sure, Bart. A fully-developed human is quite different than a newly-conceived human, whose bodily processes are so much more subtle.
Also, I am not sure if it is correct to say that death occurs at the moment the heart stops beating. The exact point at which life ends is, in my view, even more mysterious than when it begins.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:31 pm
I have always been told that death occurs when the brain stops.
Since there are MEASURABLE brain waves 25 days after conception,isnt the fetus alive then?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:34 pm
How can the brain function without blood flowing to it? Granted I could see it maybe having a few more impulses, but blood is a vital part of the brain functioning right?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:34 pm
echi wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
If that is how a doctor of the medical sciences determines a death then....the heart first beating logically would be the beginning of a person's life.


I'm not so sure, Bart. A fully-developed human is quite different than a newly-conceived human, whose bodily processes are so much more subtle.
Also, I am not sure if it is correct to say that death occurs at the moment the heart stops beating. The exact point at which life ends is, in my view, even more mysterious than when it begins.


Since we are so unsure of these mysteries....would it not make sense to err on the side of caution before proceeding?
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:36 pm
Bartikus wrote:
flushd wrote:
Bartikus, you are off-base, no disrespect intended.

Your arguement was unsucessful.

The right to abort does not have anything to do with the right to conceive.

Consider this: It is always a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

Yes, a woman has the choice to abort the fetus within her own body.
She does NOT have the right to abort another woman's fetus at whim - that would be assault or more. A man could not randomly abort a woman's fetus at random, he would need the woman's consent, or else it would be assault or more.

Understand?


My argument I concede may be unsuccessful in changing anyone's mind or at least looking at the issues from a different viewpoint.

That is no indication that my arguments are not valid.

The right to abort has alot to do with the right to conceive under a 'Pro Choice' banner.

Which right do you feel is more important?

The right to abort or the right to have children?

Neither?


You keep repeating "The right to abort has a lot to do with the right to conceive under a 'Pro Choice' banner, but you have nothing to back up that assertion.

The only correlation I draw between the right to abort and the right to conceive, is that they are indeed both Rights of a Woman.

Clearly, I feel that a woman's right to choose is the number one priority. What that choice will be....to conceive, abort, bear a child, give a child up for adoption, be childless and never conceive....is totally up to her.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:37 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I have always been told that death occurs when the brain stops.
Since there are MEASURABLE brain waves 25 days after conception,isnt the fetus alive then?


Use either the measure of the heartbeat or the brain waves and apply the laws accordingly. Either way....millions upon millions may get the chance to live. Like the many who are here now and came before us.

Just like you in fact.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:40 pm
However mysterman that just furthers my point... Brainwaves can be detected six weeks after conception. So either way you look at it the embryo is a living thing... according to scientific findings.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:43 pm
flushd wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
flushd wrote:
Bartikus, you are off-base, no disrespect intended.

Your arguement was unsucessful.

The right to abort does not have anything to do with the right to conceive.

Consider this: It is always a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

Yes, a woman has the choice to abort the fetus within her own body.
She does NOT have the right to abort another woman's fetus at whim - that would be assault or more. A man could not randomly abort a woman's fetus at random, he would need the woman's consent, or else it would be assault or more.

Understand?


My argument I concede may be unsuccessful in changing anyone's mind or at least looking at the issues from a different viewpoint.

That is no indication that my arguments are not valid.

The right to abort has alot to do with the right to conceive under a 'Pro Choice' banner.

Which right do you feel is more important?

The right to abort or the right to have children?

Neither?


You keep repeating "The right to abort has a lot to do with the right to conceive under a 'Pro Choice' banner, but you have nothing to back up that assertion.

The only correlation I draw between the right to abort and the right to conceive, is that they are indeed both Rights of a Woman.

Clearly, I feel that a woman's right to choose is the number one priority. What that choice will be....to conceive, abort, bear a child, give a child up for adoption, be childless and never conceive....is totally up to her.


All choices then should be equally protected by law?

The founder of Planned Parenthood disagrees.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:48 pm
That's nice. Not everyone agrees with me, nor do I expect them to.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:50 pm
Good outlook flushd. I agree with that statement. Not that you expected me to. hehehe
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:51 pm
A quick comment on the pro-choice mantra, "A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY"...
I agree with this statement. I think what the pro-choice people are missing is that, although a woman has the right to control her own body, she should not have the right to harm someone else's. I have the right to control my own body, but I do not have the right to control it in such a way that I cause someone else's rights to be squashed.
And, the fact that the unborn person's body is dependent on the mother's body for it's survival does not mean that both are the same body. Do any of you believe that it does? I am interested to know your reasons.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:53 pm
Wow echi... you rock dude... I couldn't have said that better myself!
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:53 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Since we are so unsure of these mysteries....would it not make sense to err on the side of caution before proceeding?


...to err on the side of respect for life. Absolutely.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 06:53 pm
flushd wrote:
That's nice. Not everyone agrees with me, nor do I expect them to.


Should all choices receive equal protection and treatment under the law then to insure those choices....those RIGHTS are not infringed upon?

Do you believe in a woman's right to choose all of those choices equally and without bias?
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 07:12 pm
The grey area of "Is a fertilized egg a human being with equal rights to the rest of us (or a fetus)" is where all the pain is caused, I think.

You can't squash rights if something/someone doesn't have any, or has a different set of rights than the rest of us, right?

The stance of Pro-Life, seems to me, to be that a fertilized egg or fetus should have equal rights to a born child. Actually, more rights than a born child! A born child is not given priority up and beyond a mother's rights, only an equal right to life.

That doesn't make sense to me, since a fertilized egg or fetus is NOT a fully functioning human being. Even to say that it is 'alive' or 'a growing person' does not make it fully functioning or equal/the same as a born child or adult. It is simply a different situation.

echi, does it really matter if we classify mother/fetus as seperate bodies or not? Would it change the fact that a fertilized egg requires the consent of the mother in order for it to grow into a fully-functioning, independent body in the social world?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 07:15 pm
Flushed or anyone who is pro choice......

Should all choices receive equal protection and treatment under the law then to insure those choices....those RIGHTS are not infringed upon?

Do you believe in a woman's right to choose all of those choices equally and without bias?
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 07:21 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Flushed or anyone who is pro choice......

Should all choices receive equal protection and treatment under the law then to insure those choices....those RIGHTS are not infringed upon?

Do you believe in a woman's right to choose all of those choices equally and without bias?


Sorry Bartikus, I was getting to that. Laughing

Of course not. All rights should receive equal protection, but not all choices.

I can smell bait...sniff...sniff...lol.

There is a difference between protecting rights of an individual and protecting "do whatever you want no matter who it hurts" behavior.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 156
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 07:22:13